I'm eagerly awaiting Kaspy's book in bookstores. Anyone seen this yet?

Just got mine via London Chess Center,...am only up to Lasker, but have really
liked it so far. If the other two in the series prove to be as good, this
series will be one the '10 desert island' chess books that everyone
suggests,...great stuff.

"Rrb828" wrote in message
...
I'm eagerly awaiting Kaspy's book in bookstores. Anyone seen this yet?

Just got mine via London Chess Center,...am only up to Lasker, but have
really
liked it so far. If the other two in the series prove to be as good, this
series will be one the '10 desert island' chess books that everyone
suggests,...great stuff.

I'm eagerly awaiting Kaspy's book in bookstores. Anyone seen this yet?

Just got mine via London Chess Center,...am only up to Lasker, but have
really
liked it so far. If the other two in the series prove to be as good, this
series will be one the '10 desert island' chess books that everyone
suggests,...great stuff.

At first glance, this may look like a well-researched work, as "Garry" makes
extensive use of quotations and frequently corrects (when necessary) or quotes
other annotators' analysis. But much of "Garry's" analysis has been
plagerized, and even "his" biographical intros are spotty.

I think a true work by Garry himself, with his own in-depth annotations,
would be quite nice, but this apparently is not what it seems, but rather a
hodgepodge of plagerized analysis enhanced by Fritz and ECO, with reworked bios
done without serious research.

I am wondering if "his" next volume will focus upon Botvinnik, Smyslov, Tal,
Petrosian, Spassky, and Fischer (oops-- ran out of space, so Karpov will just
have to wait!)

It's kind of sad when you think of the immense talent being wasted. Bobby
Fischer produced zilch after MSMG, and now Kasparov has gotten lazy. Thank
goodness there are a "few good men" like John Watson, for instance, who put
some real effort into (their own) writing.

The only thing to be said in Garry's defense, is that the pay for such work
pales in comparison to the pay for certain other types of activities he could
do. Looked at from a purely financial perspective, I imagine he (among others)
doesn't think it justifies much time or effort. (This is why we should all buy
books written by patzers!)

"Gunny Bunny" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
It wouldn't surprise me if Kasparov did nothing but the six page prologue,
lent his name to the cover and is taking a percentage of sales. This
happens allot now !!

So are you trying to say that the book was written by Kasparov`s great
predecessors ? ;-)
The same thing happened several decades ago when he and his coach wrote a
book called "Sicilian Defence". As a matter of fact it was written mainly by
Nikitin ;-)

Gee,...I kinda like the book but I think my expectations were not as high as
many who have posted. I didn't expect Garry to deliver the definative history
of all his predecessors. If I wanted that than I'd buy one of Winter's or
Soltis' books (which I have many times).

What I expected, and what I got, was a selection of noteworthy games of
champions-past, annotated and commented upon by Garry and Co. In addition,
Garry's views on his predecessors, their chess, and their contribution to the
game we know today.

As for 'plagurism',...well, I don't know. I personally don't care if he cites
old analysis, or doesn't as the case may be. I figure most of these games are
70+ years old and any 'mysteries' to be found have long since been revealed. To
be honest, in this particular case, I appreciate the lack of references. Some
authors, go hog-wild with interupting the prose in order to make reference to
their source - I find this too distracting and can only tolerate a footnote or
two at the most. If everyone had to show reference to 'previous' analysis than
nothing would get done and nothing would make sense...plus, it's not the point.

That said, I guess if you're looking for perfect historical accuracy with
references to other source materials and properly verified quotes, then you'll
have to wait for someone else to write about it, but if you're interested in
reading what the greatest player in history has to say about his predecessors
and what he sees as their contributions to chess, than pick up a copy. Either
way, it's an interesting read and you could do a lot worse.

Ryan

P.S. - I've never understood why certain people thrive on being so
'persnickety' about this stuff. I just know Edward Winter was salivating to
take a swing at Garry's new baby and am sure many other like-types will do the
same. Oh well,...whatever gets you through the day.

..
So are you trying to say that the book was written by Kasparov`s great
predecessors ? ;-)

Not quite! Garry, or whoever really put this book together, stole from
everybody, not just the "great predecessors" of Kasparov.

Sometimes it is nice to have composite game annotations, for you can gain the
benefit of several different human players' analysis, along with a computer's.
But when you think you are getting analysis of a top-notch GM, but you
aren't...

What I expected, and what I got, was a selection of noteworthy games of
champions-past, annotated and commented upon by Garry and Co.

You mean this is what you THINK you got!

The attempt to justify plagerism by personally attacking those who catch the
plageriser, is really reaching. I say, blame the plageriser for getting
caught, and congratulate those who caught him for their alertness (while
keeping in mind that they have not acheived anything great by this). I also
have certain reservations about Edward Winter, but I will not attack him as a
means to justifying plagerism by others.

but if you're interested in
reading what the greatest player in history has to say about his predecessors
and what he sees as their contributions to chess, than pick up a copy.

Again, you are merely guessing that this was all written by Kasparov. Think
again. The evidence suggests you have been "had."

it's an interesting read and you could do a lot worse.

The best defense you have come up with, so far. Perhaps the only defense
which does not crumble.

P.S. - I've never understood why certain people thrive on being so
'persnickety' about this stuff.

Damn lawyers. I say make it LEGAL tio steal anything from anybody, and we
should all be better off! Also, mayhem and murder are not really so bad as
their public images would have us believe. Certain people are better off dead
or mangled! "Those writers are best, which are governed least." -Plagerismo

I just know Edward Winter was salivating to
take a swing at Garry's new baby and am sure many other like-types will do
the same.

"Taking a swing" is a complete waste of time, if there is nothing to "hit."
This time, it looks like a grand slam.

Your real beef is that you praised this book, not realing you had been "had."
Better to learn from a mistake than to repeat it. And the first step toward
such learning, is recognition of error. Winter seems to have spent a limited
amount of time, and yet he found a multitude of errors in this book. Yuck.